WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
The size of the Barbary lion
The size of the Barbary lion
|
The size of the Barbary lion
|
There are few things in this world like dietary supplements & colder weather.
Asiatic lions in the wild, don't look like this..  *This image is copyright of its original author African lions in the wild, don't look like this..  *This image is copyright of its original author And probably no barbary lion in wild, ever looked like this..  *This image is copyright of its original author At best a few could have looked similar to these photos.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Most of the lions masquerading as Barbarys today are CROSSBREDS, that have been selectively bred to look "badass"! Let's take a look at the most probable purebreds alive today.. Czech zoo gifted from Morocco, August 2016  *This image is copyright of its original author (Notice the similarity with European zoo Asiatic lions' mane adaptation..) Barbary Lions from Moroccan zoo.  *This image is copyright of its original author A 2.5 years old male.  *This image is copyright of its original author Older stuffed specimens of real wild Barbary lion.[/size]  *This image is copyright of its original author No doubt some of 'em weighed upto 250+kgs like Bengal tigers. Note their tendency to have stocky bodies...  *This image is copyright of its original author ...and large wide skulls, unlike any other.  *This image is copyright of its original author Here's an older image for comparison...  *This image is copyright of its original author Check out these two images. NEW...  *This image is copyright of its original author Old...  *This image is copyright of its original author See how similar they looked! So, the less mane probably isn't due to genetic bottleneck. In all probability, the lions living further from the Atlas (the name "Nubian lion" was more popular then), at closer proximity to the scorching deserts, did not have the flank & belly mane. New York zoo (Wikipedia)...  *This image is copyright of its original author Circus..  *This image is copyright of its original author While these boys do have the other telltale signs like, wide skull.. Their mane are like any other lion. There is a good chance that the more spreaded mane was just a "regional adaptation" at the snowy Atlas ranges. This genetic ability to grow lush mane in cooler weather was inherited by their Asiatic cousins who evolved from them!!! The Asiatic Lions of colder regions like Northern Persia & Central Asia had more sprawled (not longer/bushier) mane...  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Even today..those supressed genes show colour rapidly, as all Indian lions in European zoos adapt to cold with more mane, within a single geneneration of being gifted away. Russian zoo.  *This image is copyright of its original author
This is the movie Tarzan and the golden lion from 1927. The lion used presents the traits associated with Barbary lions; check minute 21:39 to see his size, is rather short.
Barbary lion
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author https://archivear.tunivisions.net/176438/article/l-sd-lbrbry-k-n-mlk-lbr-ry-ltonsy-o-nkrd-bsbb-lsyd-laasho-y-lfrnsy-fydyo.tnv
Barbary lion (1875)
 *This image is copyright of its original author http://algerie.voyage.over-blog.com/article-les-grands-fauves-d-algerie-guepard-lion-46963643.html  *This image is copyright of its original author They were indeed rather short. This a screenshot from the movie I posted above. It could be a Barbary. Look at the height compared to the women. What you think? 
On the skulls of the Barbary lion:
At the beginning of this topic, I presented all the available evidence about the size of the Barbary lion, together with a few pictures of the size of adult lions in the Rabat Zoo.
I also stablished that the measurements from the lions presented by Brehm (1915) are not from "stuffed" specimens like some "guy" in Wikipedia posted, but from captive animals measured in the flesh. This is because all the measurements from great cats that Brehm quoted are from live animals. I also searched all the available literature regarding these lions and concluded that none of those exaggerated sizes of lions over 230-250 cm in head-body are reliable and that the statement of weighs of up to 660 lb (300 kg) are just hearsays and there is no reliable evidence of that, just like the old reports of "giant" Amur tigers (at least in this last case we have pictures of hunted tigers of great size). In fact, that is the same conclusion of Dr Yamaguchi about the reports of "big" lions in Algeria (Yamaguchi & Haddane, 2002).
Under this evidence and the few data available, it will be unnecessary to continue with this investigation, however there is one point that disturbed me and that needed to be clarified and are the skulls from this animal. Yamaguchi & Haddane (2002), quoting Mazák (1969), states that the largest skull from this population was of c.360 mm, which is smaller than the maximum of other lion populations (South Africa, up to 402 mm according with Roberts (1951)). However, an investigation of J. H. Mazák (2010) provides an average of 372.33 +/- 37.29 mm (n=3) for males and 318.25 +/- 13.79 mm (n=2) for females, the largest of the study. In the document "Geographical variation and phylogenetics of modern lions based on craniometric data" he stated that all the specimens were from "wild origin" which leads me to believe that all the skulls were from wild animals per se. However, when I studied the documents of Dr Yamaguchi and Dr Barnett about some studies of lion skulls I found that in fact ALL the skulls from the collections of Barbary lions are from "Captive specimens".
In the document "Divided infraorbital foramen in the lion (Panthera leo): its implications for colonization history, population bottlenecks, and conservation of the Asian lion (P. l. persica)" from 2009 (see Appendix 1) Yamaguchi and his team present a list of the specimens which corroborated that all specimens came from wild origin but it doesn't says if the animals were hunted, just captured from the wild and latter transported to captivity, or just the origin of the parents of those specimens. However in a previous document "Ancient DNA analysis indicates the first English lions originated from North Africa" from 2008 (see Table 1) Dr Barnett and his team already corroborated that all the skulls from Barbary lions were from captive origin, including the two "new" specimens from London Tower. This indicates that the specimens from 2008 and the new added in the list in 2009 by Barnett and Yamaguchi all came from captive specimens. It is interesting that from the large sample Dr J. H. Mazák only used 3 males and 2 females for his study, probably because those were the only "complete" ones (other were broken, thus incomplete for analysis).
Now that we stablished that while some specimens from the Barbary sample actually came from wild specimens but ended its existence in captivity, we must remember that captivity in lions may change its morphology, especially if those animals reached the adulthood in the confinement (Hollister, 1917). Similar thing happen with the large lion skull measured by Mazák from a specimen from Ethiopia that was captured when young and died in captivity. The skull of that particular lion looked like that of a "horse", @peter can talk about that skull. In the following table I am going to compare the skull from that captive specimen from Ethiopia with the largest (in length) wild specimens reported by Roberts (1951) from South Africa, figures in mm.
Mazák specimen Ngamiland Kruger
Greatest length 402 401 395
Condylobasal length 377 345 348
Bizygomatic breath 258.5 247 251
Mandible length 285 258 257
The largest bizygomatic breath came from two males from Kruger of 256 mm each (the two specimens were smaller than the one in the previous table here). It is interesting that while there is not too much difference in greatest length, the condylobasal length and the bizygomatic is larger in the captive specimen, which corroborate the report of Hollister. This explains the large size of the specimens in J. H. Mazák tables, compared with other wild lions.
Sadly, J. H. Mazák do not presented any ranges, so I previously estimated that the largest Barbary lion skull probably measured between 410-420 mm adding the standard deviation to the average, but this procedure have a margin of error. However in the document itself J. H. Mazák provides us with the condylobasal length (CBL) of the skulls measured (presented in Log values), which can be very useful. Check this:
 *This image is copyright of its original author It seems that there is not to much diference between the males, only the males from South Africa approach the large average CBL of the males of Barbary (and also the Cave “lion” specimens). So using the Logarithmic results we can see that the maximum and minimum CBL of the male Barbary lions are 363.1 mm and 309.0 respectively. Interestingly the smallest male Barbary skull reported by Mazák (1969) had a CBL of 309.6, which means that probably the CBL of the largest Barbary lion was of c.364 mm at the most. Important to mention is the point 107 in the graphic, which is the large skull measured by Mazák (CBL 377 mm), classified among the North East Africa specimens.
A Condylobasal length of c.364 mm is a large skull, but this means that it was a large animal? Well, not necessarily. Remember that we are taking about captive animals, an example is a large skull from a captive male lion Id CN7321, it had a CBL of 359.7 mm, but the head-body length in straight line was of 185 cm and a tail length of 95 cm (280 cm in total, like the largest Barbary lion reported). About the GSL, we will need to use only captive specimens in order to make a correct estimation, and using 6 specimens from Allen, Hollister and Mazák, I get a GSL of 401.3 mm (range 398.1 – 412 mm.). Using the only two captive male lions that I have, I get a Head-body length of 200-203 cm, which suggest a large specimen, but remember that I am using only two specimens, so is only a rogue estimation.
Mazák (1969) in the document “The Barbary Lion, Panthera leo leo (Linnaeus, 1758); some systematic notes, and an interim list of the specimens preserved in European museums” reported only 4 skulls in that moment, the largest was a male with a GSL estimated between 358-362 mm as it was broken (Yamaguchi & Hadanne (2002) reported it at c.360 mm.), check this image from his document:
 *This image is copyright of its original author However now we know that there are more specimens available, so that is why we have new records. The interesting thing is that using a real CBL reported in the paper of J. H. Mazák, the largest Barbary lion skull is smaller than the large male from Ethiopia measured by Mazák (2013 – reprint of 1983), and it was a captive specimen. Barbary lions in captivity, and also Asian/Indian lions, shows sometimes disproportionately large heads, which suggest that this large skull belonged to a male between 190-200 cm in head-body length, which is not far from the range already stablished by Brehm. In this case, this new information prove, again, that the Barbary lions was not the largest subspecies of lions and for the contrary, they fit very well with the size of current East-South African lions.
New Conclusion:
Using the little but reliable information available, the Barbary lion had a head-body length of 160-190 cm, a shoulder height of 80-100 cm and a greatest skull length with an average of 372.33 mm and a maximum of about 401 mm. These sizes are about the same than any other lion population, included Indian and Sub-Saharan lions, although it is among the largest skulls reliable recorded.
With the weight issue, there is only one reliable weight of 243 kg, which is large but, again, not exceptional in comparison with all the other populations of lions, its average weight was probably the same than the similarly sized populations in East Africa, which will be about 170-180 kg. There is only a single report of Gérard of males weighing up the 270-300 kg, but there are simple uncorroborated reports and are completelly unreliable (remember the old records of the Amur tigers).
Greetings.
Like I said in "ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)", according to people like Sir Alfred Edward Pease, the Barbary lion was short at the shoulder, due to having short limbs, and consequently, its size wasn't necessarily greater than other lions, but it nevertheless got fat and heavy due to the abundance of livestock as prey:
Sources: - Sir William Jardine, 1834: https://archive.org/stream/naturalistsli...0/mode/2up - Sir Alfred Edward Pease, 1914, who said that Barbary lions were 'enormous', not necessarily in terms of height, but in terms of weight, due to preying on abundant livestock, meaning that they were short and fat: https://archive.org/stream/bookoflion191...0/mode/2up - Nowell and Jackson, 1996, quoting Leyhausen (1975) in Page 37, who said that he and Hemmer identified the lions of Morocco's Rabat Zoo, also known as Temara Zoo, as having the characteristics of the Barbary lion, such as short legs: http://carnivoractionplans1.free.fr/wildcats.pdf Photo of a lion at Rabat Zoo by [i]Maroc-maroc.com[/i] (http://www.maroc-maroc.com/voirPhoto-72-28-place.html), notice how fat its belly is:  *This image is copyright of its original author
(09-21-2018, 09:44 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: Like I said in "ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)", according to people like Sir Alfred Edward Pease, the Barbary lion was short at the shoulder, due to having short limbs, and consequently, its size wasn't necessarily greater than other lions, but it nevertheless got fat and heavy due to the abundance of livestock as prey: Quick post: 1. About Sir William Jardine: In page 120 it shows the size of a captive Barbary lion (193 cm in head-body), is about the same than the figures of Brehm (190 cm in head-body), probably is the same source which may confirm that all the sizes and skulls known from Barbary lions are captive specimens. It doesn't say anyting about weights. 2. About Alfread Pease: In page 91 he expreses his "idea" that Barbary lions are (were) the biggest. In fact he says that he is "inclined to think" and based his statements in the prey base. However his statements are no different than those of Dunbar Brander and N. A. Baikov about the size of the Amur tigers, and we DO know what is the reality on this issue. Again, Pease do not show any information about the size, weight or anything, not even the prey base or anything to justify his conclusion. In fact, he relay in external testimonies and he says "if otherwise credible persons are to be believed" which looks more like a disclaimer than an asseveration. 3. About Nowell & Jackson: It mention what you say but also says that these characteristics are not "flawless". Again, there is no remark on the size and weight. Here is a good picture of a Rabatt Zoo lion, the archetype of the Barbary lion:  *This image is copyright of its original author Interestingly it looks about the same than the captive Indian lions, showing that they are the same subspecies. Conclusion: There is no source stating any reliable weight of a Barbary lion, appart from the single records of 243 kg found by @Kingtheropod (as far I remember) and reported by Blakesley (1859). Appart from the testimony of Gerard (1856), nobody present a weight figures. In fact Yamaguchi & Hadanne (2002) doubt of this figures of 270-300 kg in his book as there is no evidence that those lions were actually weighed, even the figure of 243 kg of Blakesley (1859) may not qualify as "reliable" if we follow the process of scrutiny made by Slagth et al (2005) about the Amur tiger weights in old litterature. It seems that the legendary size of the Amur tiger and the Barbary lions were, in fact, just myths repeated in litterature and internet with no real justification. However, at least in the case of the Amur tiger, we have a couple of pictures showing very large specimens. Check a couple of them:  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author With this picures of tiger-human comparisons and the few reliable sizes-weights available, we can say that Amur tigers were at least of the size of large Bengal tigers, but in the side of Barbary lions, we don't have this. In fact the few pictures shown in this topic do not show any large lion, especifically those with humans on it, and the few figures of sizes and skulls that we have, which came from captive animals, shows that they were no larger than the other lion populations. (09-22-2018, 10:07 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:(09-21-2018, 09:44 PM)BorneanTiger Wrote: Like I said in "ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)", according to people like Sir Alfred Edward Pease, the Barbary lion was short at the shoulder, due to having short limbs, and consequently, its size wasn't necessarily greater than other lions, but it nevertheless got fat and heavy due to the abundance of livestock as prey: With the exception of Barbary lions feeding heavily on domestic goats or livestock (https://archive.org/stream/bookoflion191...0/mode/2up). As in, Barbary lions were small, but their weights depended on the availability of prey, so imagine an Asiatic lion that has a heavy mane, and is fat due to having a heavy meal. Image of a wild Asiatic lion with a fat belly from Alamy: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-asiati...35076.html  *This image is copyright of its original author Paintings of Barbary lions in the 19th century: 1) Joseph Bassett Holder: https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/item...0a18064a99#  *This image is copyright of its original author 2) Eugène Delacroix: "Lion devouring a goat": https://collections.artsmia.org/art/1046...-delacroix  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (09-08-2018, 08:43 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: On the skulls of the Barbary lion:@GuateGojira Thanks for your valuable information  (09-08-2018, 08:43 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Yes, I don't see any reason why Barbary lions should be larger than others. Prey base in Northern Africa was much scarcer than in Sub Saharan Africa, both variety and guantity of large herbivores could not compare with savannas of East and South Africa. In same time Maghreb region has not enough cold climate sufficient to activate Bergman's rule. For any fact in the nature should be some reasons. If it's assumed that Barbary lion was larger than other subspecies has to explained why it was larger? If there are no reasons for that probably the hyphotesys is wrong. Barbary lion of course is a symbol. Symbol of Ancient Rome arenas (together with Persian lion) and the epic battles with gladiators. That's why its so important for the West and excite the imagination of the Western people. While Sub-Saharah Africa lions are interesting mainly for zoologists, Barbary and Persian lions are also interesting for the historians, as part of the history of the Western civilization, Persia and India. Does anybody knows what was the quantity ratio between Barbary lions and Persian lions thrown in the Roman arenas?  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
@Wolverine :
About #57: agree with you ! I believe that the Atlas lion's reputation was exaggerated because of its "luxuriant" mane, and of course, being so close to Europe, its history is much more linked with the European human civilisation history, - from the cave age to the XIXth century -, than any else subspecy of lion. But as you told it, objectively there is no one reason to expect it to have been bigger than the other lion's subspecies. During the XIXth century the wild big preys were already much more rare than in the south of the Sahara. Quote:@Wolverine I believe nothing is known about that. Knowing how to answer your pertinent question would provide a lot of cascading knowledge. Traders and their accounting records and Roman accounting books would be a good source for getting this information. These records have been lost and it seems to me that there is nothing in this respect in the literature; not even the Roman historians who portray the events inside the coliseum inform something to this effect. In post 45 I presented some ideas, within a broader context.
Except for the emergence of new scientific studies, discoveries of new fossils or any new documentation that will enrich this theme, the largest size attributed to the Barbary lion is a myth.
(09-25-2018, 06:17 AM)Wolverine Wrote:(09-08-2018, 08:43 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Factors which should be taken into consideration, regarding what made people think that the Barbary lion was the largest, even if it wasn't, are: - Size or extent of the mane: Amongst African lions (bearing in mind that Asiatic lions in Mesopotamian art are often depicted with belly-manes), aside from the Cape lion of South Africa, only the Barbary lion naturally had a mane which was so large and extensive that it covered the belly (https://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov2...4/mode/2up) - Abundance of livestock or even humans as prey (https://archive.org/stream/bookoflion191...2/mode/2up): Even if wild prey was scarce in the Atlas region, compared with places like the Serengeti, Barbary lions had a tendency to feed on humans and livestock, as with their surviving relatives today, and consequently: - Obesity (https://archive.org/stream/bookoflion191...0/mode/2up): It was asserted that Barbary lions could get "very fat" by feeding on mutton, and consequently: - Physique (http://carnivoractionplans1.free.fr/wildcats.pdf): Aside from the great mane and fat belly (depending on what it ate), it was stated to have a deep chest. Another aspect that I'm looking at is how muscled their limbs were |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |